The Daily Worker Newspaper, September 7, 1929, Page 4

DAILY WORKER, NEW YORK, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1929 lorker Central Organ of the Communist Party of the U.S. A. Published by the Comprodaily Publishing Co. Inc... Daily, Sunday, at 26-22 Union Square, New York City, N, Telephone Stuyvesant 1696-7-8. Cable: “DAIWORK- SUBSCRIPTION RATES: By Mail (in New York only): $4.50 six months $2.50 three months By Mail (outside of New York): $3.50 six months $2.00 three month» except v. $3.00 m— year $6.00 a year Adéress and mai! all checks to the Daily Worker, 26-28 Union Square. <<. New York, N. ¥. The Second Stage of the Gastonia Trial NDERNEATH all of the pretense of the trial of the Gastonia i ae strike leaders stands the hard, fundamental fact that the ruling class of the U. S. chinery of the law, including the legislature, the courts, the police, the completely owns and controls the entire ma- state troops, in other words, the whole machinery of power. One could almost say that it would be possible for the wealthy mill-owners, bank- ers and millionaire merchants to get together in one of their exclusive : | clubs and decide to hang Fred Beal and all of the rest of the labor organizers, and have them hanged forthwith, without any pretense of a trial. (In fact, that is exactly what nearly did happen, at the begin- ning, when the mill-owners’ agents and their capitalist newspapers tried to bring about the murder of Fred Beal by a gang organized by the mill-owners.) But there are certain things which tend to interfere with the out- right hanging of the workers’ organizers without certain formalities— it would give away the game. It would show too plainly that the whole system is one of slavery and the state nothing but the apparatus of the capitalists to suppress the workers. Therefore it is necessary to cover up the lynching by going through with what is called a “fair trial”—with the dice loaded against the working class defendants. Each different stage of the “trial” has its own peculiar form of deceit. The first stage was during the selection of the jury. Although | the law of North Carolina (made by the mill-owners and other wealthy people, or by their political servants) requires that every juryman must be a property owner, the idea being that this will make all juries favor- able to wealthy people, nevertheless the pretense is made that an “un- prejudiced” dozen of men is selected. Every capitalist newspaper tried its very best to convince the working class readers that a “fair” and “impartial” jury was selected in this case. So strong is the influence of this sort of pretense, both in the capitalist newspapers and in the pompous ceremonies of the court-room, that even a reporter of the Daily Worker telegraphed that the jury was “acceptable to both prose- For not only does the law spin all sorts of webs in the effort to guarantee cution and defense’—which is of course impossible and untrue. that juries favorable to the ruling class (mill-owners, etc.) will be | selected, but the same wealthy class owns all of the big newspapers | from which all the population gets its “information” (twisted into a form favorable to the wealthy class), and controls the schools, the theatres, the radio, the churches and all other means of shaping “public opinion.” So the mill-owners are able to guarantee that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, if not oftener, juries are strongly biased in favor of the institutions of the ruling class. Even if a juryman is a worker, he is usually very conscious of the fact that his rich employer, who controls his livelyhood, wants him to make a certain kind of a decision. Or even if he is a member of a union, it is necessary to ask: what kind of a union? For, at the present time, the big rich employers | also control the policies of most of the so-called “labor unions’”—for | instance in the case of the A. F. of L., the officials of which boast openly that they are servants of the capitalist class. So there are no “fair” juries in a country ruled by the capitalist class, to give a “fair trial” to workers. . * . Now the second stage of the trial of the sixteen textile workers has begun—the stage that is called “taking evidence.” This also is a farce for the purpose of deceiving the working class masses outside of the court-room. The big lawyers for the state (who are really hired servants of the textile mill bosses) are putting witnesses on the stand, just as actors are put on the stage, to try to convince the workers out- side of the court-room that Fred Beal and the others should be burned to death on the electric chair (or put away in prison where they can’t organize textile workers to make the mill-owners pay more wages). But all of this farce also has only the purpose of deceit. no evidence to show that any of the workers fired the shot that killed the police chifwho was trying to break the strike for the mill-owners. But this has nothing to do with the mill-owners’ desire to kill Fred Bea] and his comrades. There is For instance, if the case were reversed, if it were claimed that a shot had been fired from a crowd of the mill-owners gunmen and had killed a striking worker—does anybody imagine that all of those gun- | men would be held responsible for the murder of the striker, or that | any of the big rich mill owners who put guns into their hands and told them to break the strike at any cost, would be jailed and fried for murder or conspiracy? Or even if it were proven that a particular gunman fired the shot, does any one think the capitalist state controlled by the mill-owners would prosecute him for murder? Behind all of the farce of “fair juries” and “evidence” is the real issue of CLASS AGAINST CLASS. The mill owners want to kill the leaders of the textile workers, so as to break up the National Tex- tile Workers Union and to continue to exploit the workers without limit in the “stretch-out” system at golden profits. In order to do it safely they are obliged under the circumstances to put on a “trial” with all this stage-play which has only one purpose—to make it safe to burn to death those who are worrying the big rich owners of the textile mills. It is class against class. Working class pressure compelled a change of venue to Charlotte; working class pressure compels the bourgeoisie to stage the pretense of a “fair” trial, Fight for your own class, increase the class pressure, and don’t. be deceived by the pretense of “fair” trials of workers in courts owned by the bosses. oe All returns of the Gastonia Joint Defense and Relief Cam- paign August 24 to September 2 are asked to be sent in at once to the committee's national head- quarters at 80 East Eleventh St., toom 402. All petition blanks already filled with signatures are also asked to be returned at once. The need for the funds is urgent to meet the rapidly increasing ex- penses in the South, where the trial has already entered up>n its second week. Shop collections, house-to-house collections, factory gate and street collections are still going on and will continue in the industrial centers until the workers are freed. United front conferences, taking in as many workers or- ‘ions as possible, building | a solid resistance to the bosses from below, is one of the most powerful weapons in saving the 23 Gastonia strikers frum death or imprisonment. THE STRIKEBREAKER Se By Fred Ellis The Internalional Situation and Tasks of the Communist International Report of Comrade Kuusinen | AT THE TENTH PLENUM OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE COMINTERN 1. The Economic Antagonisms of the Present Period. Dear Comrades: We had to divide the report on the first agenda item. I will re- port on one part, and Comrade Manuilsky on the other. The report has been divided so that I will deal with the general questions connected with the character of the present period. This includes the leftward development of the working class, and also our general strategic line. On the other hand, Comrade Manuilsky will deal with tactic and the tasks of the individual Communist Parties, Against the Overestimation of the Technical Development of Capitalism Of course it is not up to me to give a new analysis of the economic or political world situation. There is no ion for this, because the analysis given in the resolutions of the Sixth World Congress does not require alteration. We have only to throw light on the most im- portant features of this analysis on the strength of the experienee gained from events after the Sixth World Congress. Hence, my task is much more modest than an analysis of the entire economic and political world situation. When dealing with the present period, I would like to take up first of all the Right deviation which, in my opinion, is a serious devia- tion involving principle, although it assumes sometimes a rather “in- nocent” form. I mean the deviation of overestimation of the technical development of production by contemporary capitalism, especially in the present period. You know that such an overestimation of the de- velopment of production has happened, for instance, among the Ger- man conciliators (memorandum by Ewert and others), and in a par- ticularly sharp form in the draft theses of the Majority of the Amer- ican Party for the last convention ‘of the Communist Party of the United States (Lovestone and Pepper), which spoke even of a “second industrial revolution” which is alleged to be going on in America. This expression has been used before, prior to our Sixth World Congress, in an: article of the London “Times.” In this connection, there is a tendency to record every new technical invention as economic progress of capitalism, and also to ignore the economic limits and impeding fac- tors of the further technical development characteristic of capitalism in general and of monopolist capitalism in particular. In my opinion, this tendency leads to the revision of the founda- tion of Marxism. Therefore, our comrades must be well armed for the struggle against the deviation. < What is for us the general decisive criterion in the estimation of economic progress under capitalism? Not every technical invention has in itself a social-economic value. Big technical inventions are made which do not prove of special eceonomic value at once, or even at all. For instance, radio, aircraft and some (not all) chemical discoveries, important in themselves, are for the time being of relatively small economic importance. Only the view-point of the development of the productive power. of labor can be a decisive economic criterion. Not every technical improvement, even if it be valuable in itself, is compat- ible with the given profiteering or accumulation conditions of capital- ism, especially in the period of monopolist capitalism. How can one ignore this fact? Has not, since the birth of mon- opolist capitalism, fhe contradiction between the technical develop- ment possibilities of production, on the one hand, and the profiteering interest of monopolist capital, on the other hand, been a well-known fact? Marx has already particularly emphasized this contradiction and its tendency to become accentuated in the course: of capitalist develop- ment. . A further big development of the productive power of labor is certainly going on now in the capitalist world through technical im- provements of the means and methods of production. This is a fact. But parallel with this, is also the tendency of stagnation, of retarded development of the forces of production. This is also a fact. How is it possible suddenly to forget what Lenin has written about. this last fact, about parasitism and the disintegration of monopolist capital- ism, about the tendency towards stagnation, towards a rentier state, ete. i I will read you what Lenin says on this question in his “Imperial- ism”: “As monopolist prices are introduced, be it only temporarily, the incentive to technical and consequently to every other prog- ress, disappears to a certain extent; There arises to the same extent the economic possibility to impede technical progress arti: ficially.” i In this connection, Comrade Lenin gives, as an example, the in- vention of an American named Owens for the improvement of the manufacture of bottles. This invention was bought by German bottle manufacturers to prevent its application. We read last year in the press that this invention has only been taken up now in the bottle business. Lenin goes on to say: “The possibility of decreasing the cost of production and increasing profits by technical improvements certainly encourages innovations. But the tendency toward stagnation and disin- tegration characterictic of monopoly, does its work and gets the upper hand for certain periods in some countries and branches of industry.” But can anyone assert that this is in no longer in accordance with the present capitalist system? One has only to put. this question clearly for every one to understand that this is more true today than ever before. In spite of the, in some cases, considerable technical development of the social production apparatus, which is actually going on now, it is clearer than ever before that the urge of the social productive forces to further development is much greater than there is scope for it within the framework of capitalist production condi- tions, that the capitalist mode of production is no longer wide enough for the development of the productive forces of labor to the extent of the existing prerequisites of technical sciences and possibilities. In one “sphere of production” alone, the application of technical inventions makes really brilliant progress; not in the sphere of the production of means of production or consumption, of raw materials and semi-manufactured articles, but in the sphere of the production of the means of destruction, in the sphere of war technique. It is, for instance, 2 well-known fact that a considerable section of the chemical industry in the imperialist countries at present owes its development to the support of the governments for war purposes. The same applies to civil aviation, etc. One has only te realize to what extent, technical progress in all the spheres of useful social production lags behind the triumphal march of war technique, to get an objective picture of cap- italist development and to lose all desire to praise the alleged role of contemporary capitalism in regard to the enormous development of the social forces of production. ’ But capitalist rationalization is used as an argument against this conception. Rationalization, the large scale, thorough reorganization in whole branches of production in some big industrial countries such as Germany and the United States, in almost all important spheres of production, this big reorganization of production—does it not prove something quite different from what I have just said? No, we must only understand what capitalist rationalization is in reality. We have dealt with this question already at the 7th Plenum of the E. C. C. I. But I think that we must go now a little more fully into this question. The capitalists themselves and the capitalist writers of course inter- pret “rationalization” as various forms of reorganization of production and distribution by which the enterprises can increase their profits. For instance, all elimination of middlemen, almost complete economizing of constant capital, every normarilization, typization, standardization of production, ete. But this is not capitalist rationalization in the real sense. It belongs to other categories’ which have been already known a long time under other, more suitable names. Capitalist rationalization, in the real sense, is reorganization of the labor process according to a definite system with a definite, dominating purpose of exploiting human labor power to the utmost. Its original idea was launched by so-called “scientific” manage- ment.” But this idea was to a great extent put into practice through the conveyor system (with certain modifications in the building in- dustry, offices, etc.). We dealt at the VII Plenum “with the Capitalist. rationalization swindle.” We were right in deciding against it, although the term “swindle” was not appropriate because capitalist rationalization is a very real fact. But it is more serious that there was at that time no full Glarity or unanimity in our ranks: If we should simply oppose capi- talist rationalization, or if we should only struggle against its “con- sequences,” maintaining otherwise a certain. kind of “neutrality.”~ The German comrades felt instinctively that capitalist rationalization would worsen enormously the position of the workers. .This was correct, and they therefore protested against any attitude of neutrality in this ques- tion. But another conception cropped up in the then discussion, which placed capitalist rationalization on a par with technical development in general. It was said that capitalist rationalization has two ‘sides, a technical and a social side, which are certainly inseparably connected. But this was a very inaccurate definition. It is not conducive to clarity, if the special feature of capitalist rationalization is left out of account: capitalist rationalization is economic progress, but it has pernicious consequences for the workers, under capitalism. Introduction of any new machinery shows this “social side” is just.the crux of the matter. Under capitalist rationalization, there can be improvement of machinery, in fact there is such an improvement in most cases, but it can proceed without this improvement. But there is one thing which always happens under capitalist rationalization, namely, intensification of labor. To intensify labor,.the conveyor system is introduced, it also happens (although not always) that machinery. is appropriately reno- vated, etc. Thus, capitalist rationalization in the true sense means en- forcement of maximum intensification of labor for every’ individual worker through the reorganization of the process of labor a¢cording to the conveyor system, or according to a similar system. of automatic speeding up and control of labor intensity. ‘ The difference between this ,definition and the above-mentioned is seemingly small, but very great in reality, One can see this clearly by asking oneself the question if the character of capitalist rationaliza- tion consists in an increase of the productivity of labor or not. Accord- ing to thé former definition, yes, according to the latter definition, no! » According to Marx, increased productivity of labor means enabling the worker “to produce more with the same expenditure of labor, in the same time.” This takes place mainly through the improvement of the means of labor. But intensification of labor means: “increased expendi- ture of labor in the same time, increased strain.put on labor. power, a denser filling in of the pores of the labor time, ie. ‘condensation of labor,’ ‘condensation’ of labor time, or, as Marx says; ‘compression of a bigger volumne of work in a given space of time.’ Thus, these are two different things. Both of them produce the same result for the employer: a larger quantity of goods produced by one worker in a definite space of time. What difference this consti- tutes in the creation of value, I will not discuss here*). More important in this conection is the difference that increased productivity through’ the introduction of new machinery is, as a rule, accompanied by in- creased intensity of labor; intensity, of labor, however, can re es Re AW ted, by permission, from “I Saw It Myself” by Henri Barbusse, shed and copyrighted by E. P. Dutton & Co., Inc, New York. THEIR HEADS UNBOWED * i ae UT. “No!” they said; “we will not.” Then they were decimated; scenes yet more horrible and more ferocious marked this stage in that living tragedy. Their numbers visibly dwindled away. And how many times over was that secen re-enacted—men concealing the traces of freshly-made graves! Their numbers dwindled away.... Never mind; to the last they were as one single man. But now historical events intervened in the dark story and made the great amendment. Denikin was beaten by the revolution. The workers of Toula set up such furious barriers that Denikin recoiled, fled to the shores of the Black Sea, and farther than that, to Paris. And now at last the little throng of Russian soldiers have triumphed over events. At last they have become true soldiers of the revolu- tion. They have encompassed that definite thing which they saw in their dreams when they refused to serve the ends of those who massacre the people. Their unshakable determination at last has won the right. Never, in all the history of mankind, was promise more splendidly kept by a band of men both greater and more human than their fellows, These simple hearts—some of them are personally known to me—on their first encounter, with unerring judgment, rejected the pseudo- democracy of Western Europe with all its hypocritical middleclass Tzarism and its paper-made freedom. From the first, they hurled back the Marseillaise into the faces of the abettors and organizers of the Great International game of plunder. In their bloody trek across the inferno of the Old World, in their quest of the ideal, they were fight- ing on behalf of all races upon earth by the might of their will, their hearts and their bodies. They strove will all their strength, began the great work that lies before men, sharply turning their backs on the cheap-jacks.of Civilization, of Right, of Moral Progress and Republi- canism, who jibber and jig on the Parliamentary stage in the Music-Hall at Geneva. PART II THE WHITE TERROR THE UNTAMABLE KNOW what happens in Rumanian prisons, those living cemetertes. I went to Rumania purposely to find out. I have talked with prisoners, had letters from them; in Rumania and elsewhere, I have talked with men who have got away from those up-to-date caverns in Doftana, Jilava, Vacaresti, etc., where political prisoners, convicted or detained on suspicion of Bolshevism, are killed by slow degrees. : Countless facts, patent, undeniable, throng round me, clamoring with a voice like the voice of remorse. And on one of these I would like to shed a little light today—on one man, one case. G. Boujor was a Rumanian lawyer who had expressed sympathy with Russia. In particular—and this was the greatest crime laid to his charge—he had been Rakovsky’s secretary. He had protested against the annexation of Bessarabia, of which the least that one can say is that it constituted an act of international robbery perhaps without pre~ cedent, a bare-faced challenge to the right of peoples to govern them- selves, : j * * « For six years now, Boujor has been shut up in Doftana prison. For six long years, perpetually loaded with chains, he has been confined in a diminutive cell, containing the bed where he crouches, hands and feet held down by iron loads. There he eats and there he sleeps, Within hand’s reach, a pan. This is the only furniture in a cell which he has not once quitted in seventy-fotir months. Absolute secrecy hems him around, seals him hermetically in. He is not only forbidden to receive any visits; from the very first day he has seen no human face, heard no human voice. He is forbidden to read and write. Nor would it be possible, for he is in complete dark- ness. No light in this bare-sided safe. He is lueky if he sees the arm of the gaoler who draws back the heavy sliding door of the dungeon, once in every twenty-four hours, to pass through a grating, and lay. down near him, a revolting mess of soup. : At first, urged desperately by human instinct, he sought to speak with this gaoler, hear the sound of his voice. In vain. The orders of the Rumanian oligarchy are that no one must ever speak to Boujor. It was in vain, too, that steps have been taken to obtain some alleviation of this fearful torture which changes a human being into a corpse, and consigns him, yet living, to the tomb. The Rumanian oligarchy has always refused to do anything to lighten this vengeful retribution. In spite of the representations of Soviet Russia, Rumania has never consented to exchange Boujor for other prisoners. * * * Guar, there was one day when Boujor was seen, was spoken to, and when he answered. Rumor had come that he was dead; then a fresh rumor: he had gone mad. With my own eyes I read the tragic letter written by an old prisoner in Doftana, telling how, in the night—sometimes, when the weather was calm—the dull sound of tunes and chantings could be heard, suspiring out of the ground; it was Boujor. A young working woman, by name Lenutza Filipovici, determined to risk everything to get through t& him and find out what had become of him. A chance happening gave her an excuse. During the political trial known as the trial of the Three Hundred, the Public Prosecutor had de- clared that Lenutza, who was eighteen, had been Boujor’s mistress. This was a lie, but the young woman tried to turn/it to account. She went straight to the high offiical in the Rumanian police who was re- sponsible for the suppression of Communists—that sinister figure Ranciulescu, “Chief of the Communist Brigade.” She said to him, “They say that Boujor is dead.” ‘That’s not true,” replied Ranciulescu; “he’s alive.” Lenutza bravely put forward her plea, “You know that he was my lover. I should like to make sure if he’s still alive.” The official turned his back on her, because he had special orders to allow this prisoner no contact with the living. (To be Continued) ee place without an increase of its productivity, without technical im- provement of the means of production. There is an element in the capitalist rationalization which is pro- gressive in itself: elimination of superfluous motions of the worker! from the labor process, or, as Marx says, “reduction of an unproductive consumption of labor power.” But in comparison with the enormous intensification of labor, this is of secondary importance. The technical renovtion of machinery, more or less regularly connected with capital- ist rationalization, is not, as already said, its inevitable corollary; it can be theoretically distinguished from it and included in the category of all other technical improvements, certainly with the following very important reservation: in connection with capitalist rationalization, the technical development of machinery, and above all of the labor machine, is given a definite dominating direction: to adapt itself to the conveyor system and to enforce also, on its own part, an ever-growing intensifi- cation and automatic control of the work done. Formerly too intensi- fication of labor always accompanied technical improvement whereas it has.'become now the main object of the technical improvement of the means of production. Can we take up a neutral attitude to this, saying “this does not concern us?” Certainly not, and the decision of the Seventh Plenum said so. Under what conditions could we remain neutral in the face of such a reorganization of the Labor process? Only under the following conditions: (1) If more intensive labor is compensated to the worker by a corresponding curtailment of the working day and an increased real wage, (2) if, moreover, the increase in the intensity of labor does not go beyond a certain limit when it can be no longer compensated, when excessive strain brings with it detrimental consequences for the health and normal living conditions of the worker in spite of a shorter work-day and higher wages, and (3) if in regard to compensation and also. in regard to the required limitation of the intensity of labor the age difference (young and old workers) is taken specially into con- sideration. But are such conditions taken into consideration in the capitalist rationalization? Nowhere in the capitalist world. Considera- tion of such conditions in the organization of labor is to be found only in the Soviet Union. If, apart from the aforesaid three conditions, the fourth condition is carried out, i. e., if the working class itself becomes the owner of the means of production, in that case we are prepared not only to take up a neutral attitude to rationalization, but to get recon- ciled to it But in that case, it would not be capitalist rationalization. i. (To be | I}